Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:10:05 -0500 From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: PortsNG (was Re: Ports Options Paper) Message-ID: <20000909011005.E92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009082247430.15227-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>; from kris@FreeBSD.org on Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:51:16PM -0700 References: <20000909003743.B92984@bonsai.hiwaay.net> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009082247430.15227-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Sep 08, 2000 at 10:51:16PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: # As I understand the NetBSD system, you would mark the WITH_BAR package as # conflicting with WITH_ICK, and vice versa, so you can't install one if the # other is present. If the conflict is only in the way the two are built, # i.e. they tread on each other's files, then a package combining the two is # quite feasible, which would conflict with the both others. Cool. I never said that what we want to do hasn't already been done before. We just need to define the problem space before we go looking for solutions. Yes NetBSD seems to have a solution to this particular problem but without knowing what all the problems are we are trying to address, how can we possibly say that simply adopting NetBSD's changes will solve all of them (and they very well might). -steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000909011005.E92984>